The Democratic presidential nomination could turn on tomorrow's primary in Pennsylvania. And while both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have had their issues with video games, this campaign has far deeper ramifications.

As a Keystone State resident, I can assure you that the candidates are working overtime with appearances, rallies and the like. And phone calls...

Here at GPHQ we've received about a dozen calls since last week, evenly divided between the Clinton and Obama camps. Phone calls from volunteers, recorded messages from candidates, and even one from Bill Clinton.

So we're running a poll today and tomorrow to ask GamePolitics readers who they think will win in Pennsylvania.

I think Hillary will win, remember that she started off this long stretch between primaries up by 20. However, I think the gap will have closed enough that her win won't have enough delegates associated with it to mean much. That won't stop her from wringing every drop of worth she can out of even a tiny victory, but in the end it will be hard to spin the math.

I understand the wariness of some gamers over Obama's "put down the games" comments... but really, isn't that what we've been wanting all along? For government to advocate responsible parenthood as opposed to legislation? Never did Obama say stop playing games altogether, just that occasionally parents do need to make their kids take a break to do other things too. It seems reasonable enough to me.

Clinton, you can rest assured, would love to legislate games into oblivion.

One last thought that I would like to leave, is that while the candidates stances on games aren't all that meaningful in light of other issues, how it reflects on their attitudes towards broader technology is somewhat important. The fact that Obama understands the importance of net neutrality, and is taking advice from Lawrence Lessig, means a great deal to me.

Anyone else bothered by the fact that all three canidates at the moment are Washington insiders, senators no less, and senators have a very sketchy record in the white house (at lest from a modern perspective)

Clinton's going to win; last weeks "debate" (more like a 3:1 mugging) spent the first half dredging up every stupid non-issue POS gaffe that could be found on obama, and he hasn't had the chance to bounce back from that flurry of bullshit.

Obama's still gonna win though, unless the Supers decide to ignore the fact that he's won more states, more delegates, and the popular vote.

As to Obama's hypothetical chances in the election: I'm thinking pretty good. Mcain seems to be willing to carry on bush's policies regarding iraq, and that's gonna hurt him big time. The fact that he doesn't grasp that the economy is weak right now will not work out in his favor.

Hillary will probably win Pennsylvania, but she has no way of overtaking Obama's delegate lead. It's pretty much over. And since McCain is basically running for a third term for George W. Bush, who 75% of the nation hates, I think it shouldn't be too hard for him to take the White House (presuming our media actually talks about real issues at some point instead of focusing on meaningless campaign nonsense like who did what in Bosnia or does someone have an elitist vibe, which means I take that back and we're all doomed to four more years of Bush).

Under our current system, voting third-party is basically the same as not voting at all, so I heartily endorse this option for all Republicans unhappy with McCain.

It's not going to matter, because their stances on every issue and nearly the exact same friggin' thing, and they know it- so they've resorted to name-calling and just about every political dirty trick known in the book.

Hillary "knows nothing about the issues"? I challenge you to find one article written by any journalist that claims Obama knows more about the issues than Hillary. She is a policy wonk through and through. She could give a 2 hour speech on any political issue you can think of. Obama has been criticized for months for being vague on his policies. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Just like the idiots you claim Hillary panders to.

Since when have lawyers been intelligent?! (JT ring a bell?!)
Cause they were lawyers, they equal awesome? Dear Lord…

I didn’t think it was that hard to claim “insanity” for you guilty ass client is it really? The law is not a challenge to work in because it’s FUCKING BROKEN! You can do whatever you want! It’s a game of who the better BSer is, who can find the most loopholes, who can bribe the most people… it really is a big fucking joke.

Oh man… America is in deep shit… the founding fathers would be pissed. Hahaha!

As much as I want Obama to win Pennsylvania, I don't think he will. He won't lose by much mind you, but with the "Kitchen sink" politics of the Clintons, I just think he's not had enough time after the latest few gaffes he and his campaign have made.

Don't know. I hope Barak wins, because I can't vote for Billary or McCain. If he doesn't carry the democratic nomination I'm gonna have to either not vote or vote for some ridiculous write-in candidate.

The poll should have different options for the margin of victory. Clinton will most likely win PA, I think the real question is whether she can win with a big enough margin to make any real headway in the overall delegate count.

PA is, district-wise, mostly Rebuplican due to its many suburban and country areas. In that sense, I think that Clinton has a good chance of winning. However, with Obama's political nonsense that he spouts at every rally, he's attracting quite a crowd, and I wouldn't be very surprised if he won. I admit, change is a very appealing platform, but he's campaigning on lies... That work, nonetheless. That's politics for you.

From what I have heard, I don't think they both would not be any good for the Videogame Industry.

Sure I may be an Australian and I would perfer Obama over Clinton anyway since Obama's views on Videogames are only just his opinions.

Clinton's opinions are so extreme that she wants to turn them into law.

So I would ask you Americans to do what you can to chose Obama for your Democrat Candidate, but think verry carefully when you decide either Republican or Democrat as it is that the Anti-gamers can be from one or the other depending where you guys live.

Well, obviously, Obama's the lesser of the two evils. But I still worry about his hypocritical message, saying kids should be more involved in art and music, then turn around and tell parents to put the games away.

Thanks, Canary from the UK, for asking so nicely. Barack Obama will become our 44th President, evicting Bush from the White House and ending our long national nightmare.

Hillary Clinton will win Pennsylvania (ugh!), though not by much. Considering she was leading Obama by 16 points only a few weeks ago, he's done an excellent job tightening up this race, despite her very negative and destructive campaign.

Clinton will take PA. Remember, only D's can vote, so the Republican middle counties don't count for squat. I'll be getting up early to drive back to my old district to vote. Obama might take Philly, but Obama's (much over-hyped) recent comment probably nixed him the western PA hunter vote, and any straggling D's in the center of the state. Silly, what will change people's mind on voting.

I just go to Congress.org and look at voting records. Obama's far too much a leftist for me to vote for him in the General Election, but he's consistant, whereas Hitlery will flip for a vote on the thin edge of a dime.

After months of bickering too many people from either camp won't vote for the other now. Obama supporters have become as acidic to Clinton has the republicans at this point.... and many Clinton supporters are just giving up on the party.

The democrats are probably too fractured and self-destructive now. Republicans will probably get the whitehouse now.

Just vote third party. Not voting doesn't protest anything. A silly write-in won't even be counted (unfortunately they count as a provisional ballot and only are counted if the state is heavily contested. They are counted eventually, for history, but not in delegating electoral votes).

The delegate math says that the contest has been decided for a while now, but the media is enjoying the ratings so they're portraying the race as closer than it actually is. Even giving Clinton extremely generous projections for the remaining primaries, she can't catch up to Obama in delegates. Even giving her every single super delegate who hasn't come out supporting either candidate, she wouldn't be able to reach the magic number to clinch the nomination.

It's just scorched earth politics for the Clinton right now. She wants to do as much damage to Obama as possible so that he'll lose the general election and she can run again in 4 years.

You're right: not voting does protest anything (although, I made a pretty logical argument for non-voting earlier this year; it was pretty convicing). Vote 3rd party.

Actually, I'll probably go with Alan Keyes in the final election; he's the one I should have voted for last time, regardless of his chances. His values line up closest with mine, and he hasn't said anything against games yet.

Games aren't the only thing that matters to me; I'm obviously not voting for some scumbag, no matter how much they claim to support games.

If push comes to shove, I'll vote for myself, just to show I don't support any major candidate.

One thing that concerns me about the victor is the likely hood that the next president will be appointing new judges to the supreme court... bush already managed to stack two of them in there... Quite frankly, i would not trust Hilary at all for choosing Supreme court justices... between Clinton and McCain, i think i would rather trust McCain more with that responsibility... as far as Republicans go, i think he's more moderate than most conservatives and is more willing to compromise... With Clinton, i just KNOW she will put on "nanny-state" justices... With McCain, i feel that, while conservative, he will put on more moderate justices...

@Tom
Not exactly... despite the difference in delegates Clinton still has a real chance of getting the nomination. Neither of them will reach the 2025 delegates they need to automatically win the candidacy and as such the decision will come down the Democratic Convention which can pretty much vote however they please... if they really want, they can give the candidacy to Clinton despite her lower delegate count. However it will take a lot for the convention to vote against the majority delegate count; would likely result in a lot of backlash.

Right now, Clinton's strategy is to prove that Obama is a poor choice and can't win the final election against McCain... essentially she's trying to prove that this is a case where the majority voters are wrong.

What's so problematic about the whole thing is that if Obama wins the candidacy she will have done considerable damage to his campaign. First, by having the democratic nomination run into June, McCain is able to campaign unopposed and gain support. 2nd, her tactics are more about mud slinging Obama and convincing people he's bad, as opposed to the MUCH more tasteful tactic of just trying to convince people she's better. The mudslinging she uses against Obama and the damage she's done will carry over to the general election; it will weigh Obama down and give McCain some aid (If McCain wins he should send a gift basket to Hillary to thank her for helping knock Obama down a few pegs)

really, unless she actually thinks McCain would be a better choice for president, then she's a complete idiot, is thinking of only of herself and fails to see the bigger picture. If she and Obama really do carry some of the same views and if she would rather a democrat win as opposed to McCain, then she should be willing to take one for the team, and do what she can to support Obama to make sure we get a democrat in the whitehouse... At the very least, if she wanted to still take a shot for the whitehouse, she should continue her campaign in such a way that what she says can't be used against Obama during the general election

I'm not a US resident, but my money is riding on Obama, he seems to have the crest of the wave at the moment.

And take it from a UK Resident, female leaders are nothing special, the last one we had was more of an authoritarian control freak than anything else. Though, in all fairness, that was more down to the person than the gender, but I don't see Hilary being a million miles from Thatcher in that respect either.

There's a big difference between who I think will win and who I want to win. I'm sure Clinton will win Pennsylvania, she's been way up in the polls since the beginning (though Obama has closed much of the gap). I would like it if Obama won Pennsylvania, but I'm confident he will win the nomination (just look at the math of how many pledged delegates he's likely to end up with) so I'm not concerned.

Unfortunately as this whole process drags on it further's McCain's cause. Mark my words, when someone is FINALLY decided as the Democratic candidate for President, McCain and the Republican party will harp on the fact it took soooo long to finally decide on who's going to run against him and if it takes that long to make such a decision how effective will they be in the White House? Ugh, you know it's coming and it sucks.

Hillary will win. Obama has huge crowds to be sure. But Hillary has an older population that will not necessarily turnout at an event. I don't know that her margin will be huge. I think it may run tight, similarly to Texas.

Fools are voting who they WANT to win, not who actually WILL win. Clinton has been strong and projected to win PA for months. I'm an Obama supporter, but I can't see him pulling a victory there; At best, it'll be a small margin loss for Obama.

I do hope that Obama will win, but I somehow doubt he will in Pennsylvania. With the recent controversies regarding his speach about how Pennsylvanians turn to "God and guns" and media accusations that he's an elitist, and the fact that Clinton has been hammering away at those controversies, I don't think he will. I don't think Clinton will beat him by a large margin, though, and a big victory is what she will need in order to get the nomination as Democratic nominee.

~the1jeffy: I'm sure there are some cosmetic differences, but his foreign policy is just as (if not more) hawkish: McCain is 100% behind continuing the war in Iraq, and hasn't exactly shown reservations about Iran either.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

ZippyDSMlee: .....win8 hates any left over hidden install partitions from other version of windows....only waste 5 hours finding that out...its ahrder than you think keeping up with 4 or 5 HDDS......03/03/2015 - 4:44am

Matthew Wilson: I am going to pax east, any games you guys want me to check out?03/02/2015 - 11:23pm

ZippyDSMlee: No one remembers the days of Cinemagic and Cynergy eh? :P, meh even MGS is getting to film like....03/02/2015 - 8:44pm

MechaTama31: I was about to get all defensive about liking Metal Gear Solid, but then I saw that he was talking about "cinematic" as a euphemism for "crappy framerate".03/02/2015 - 8:29pm

prh99: Just replace cinematic with the appropriate synonym for poo and you'll have gist of any press release.03/02/2015 - 5:34pm

Monte: Though from a business side, i would agree with the article. While it would be smarter for developers to slow down, you can't expect EA, Activision or ubisoft to do something like that. Nintnedo's gotta get the third party back.02/28/2015 - 4:36pm

Monte: Though it does also help that nintendo's more colorful style is a lot less reliant on graphics than more realistic games. Wind Waker is over 10 years old and still looks good for its age.02/28/2015 - 4:33pm

Monte: With the Wii, nintnedo had the right idea. Hold back on shiny graphics and focus on the gameplay experience. Unfortunatly everyone else keeps pushing for newer graphics and it matters less and less each generation. I can barely notice the difference02/28/2015 - 4:29pm

Monte: ON third party developers; i kinda think they should slow down to nintendo's pace. They bemoan the rising costs of AAA gaming, but then constantly push for the best graphics which is makes up a lot of those costs. Be easier to afford if they held back02/28/2015 - 4:27pm

Matthew Wilson: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/28/the-world-is-nintendos-if-only-theyd-take-it/ I think this is a interesting op-ed, but yeah it kind of is stating the obvious.02/28/2015 - 2:52pm